The Constitution in a Multicultural Society

[Carla_Danger]

PC, what aspects of a multi-cultural society do you think contradict the Constitution?
concisely, and in your own words, please.
I think that answering that question will greatly elevate the conversation.

There is a great deal of unintentional humor in your post....e.g., suggesting that you can tell me how to post.

i'm not telling you how, i'm just asking that you clearly and concisely spell out to us in your own words which aspects of a multi-cultural society are in conflict with the Constitution.

i think making your argument succinctly will help move the conversation forward.

for instance, I may say that the Constitution guarantees a multi-cultural society, since we have been guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, relgion, equal protection...

it's as if the framers didn't think we were all one homogeneous group, or that we would need to be in order to have a strong nation.

do you disagree with that?

This is a very good question. I noticed that you've asked this question several times, and clearly she is not capable of answering.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

"...conservative..."???


"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.

The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive."
European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

Why do you list one court in Europe instead of the many courts in the US who have ruled the opposite?

The poster above is claiming that opposing same sex marriage rights is Marxist. You either agree with him or you don't.

Which is it?

Habits start out like cobwebs but end up as strong as steel cables.....and, in old age, your longtime habit of lying and/or change of subject have become a sort of involuntary tic.
You're certainly not able to chart a new course at this late stage.

This post of yours, a perfect example.

Did you not claim that the view was "conservative"?

Would you continue on and claim that the EU, or the UN or "The highest human rights court in Europe" is conservative?


I certainly wouldn't put it past you, as lying is your mode of operation, isn't it.

In 2006, the House voted on the following proposed Amendment to the Constitution:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

202 Republicans voted for it. 34 Democrats voted for it.

Please continue your argument that the opposition to same sex marriage rights is not overwhelmingly conservative.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll378.xml

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is unsurprisingly, and comprehensively, ignorant.


Constitutional protections with regard to freedom of though and speech place restrictions only on unwarranted government excess and overreach, not the private sector.

Got it;

So a government action forcing a religious organization to provide abortion services would be unconstitutional, but a fast food chain terminating employees for agitating with the monopoly SEIU would be entirely constitutional, right Saul?

After all, if the GOVERNMENT coerces people or institutions then we violate the free exercise clause. But a private organization has every right to constrain speech damaging to the organization by employees....

Funny how that is exactly opposite of what your filthy party promotes......

 

[PoliticalChic]

Society? I thought right wingers rejected the notion that society even exists.

As a result of this post, you have no basis for ever using the word "thought."

If you can't see it's true, it's probably because you post more than you read.

So....it's a race to the bottom of the class between the two of you.

Good luck.

You're being obtuse. I'm sure you're aware of the views of Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand (two of the most worthless pieces of shit this world has ever produced) regarding society. They're probably your personal heroes / saviors.

The statement that you've made about those women is a boomerang....it applies particularly well to you.


1. " Margaret Thatcher matched Reagan’s military buildup with a strengthening of Britain’s defense forces. She was the strongest voice in Western Europe protesting against Soviet-ordered martial law against Solidarity in Poland. Thatcher took office in May, 1979, and Reagan in January, 1981, and they vanquished communism in less than a decade.

2. Thatcher fought a war to evict Argentina from the Falklands, and thereby compelled the Soviets to accept that the West would fight to defend itself. She supplied Blowpipe missiles to the Afghan resistance giving Reagan the justification to insist that American intelligence agencies supply them with the more effective Stinger missiles.

3. She prevented the European Union from accepting the legitimacy of Soviet incorporation of the Baltic countries inside its multi-national Gulag. She rallied the Europeans to ensure the installation of US missiles in Western Europe in 1984 to match the Soviet planting of SS-20s in the Soviet satellites. This was a decisive defeat for the Soviet Union in the Cold War, as they lost the hope of being able to employ nuclear blackmail against NATO, and of splitting the Atlantic alliance. The collapse of communism occurred only a few years later.

4. Thatcher, in fact, may well be regarded by history as more important than Reagan, in respect to economic reform. This is because recovery of the British economy in the 1980’s started at a lower point, and occurred in a more left-wing country: while Jimmy Carter was fairly effective at ruining an economy, but was no match for 50 years of socialism and Labour government. Thatcher successfully battled not only Labour MP’s, and timid Tories, but labor unions, as in the ’84-’85 miners’ strike. These domestic victories weakened the extreme left everywhere."
John O’Sullivan, Executive Editor, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,
from a speech delivered May 9, 2008 at Hillsdale College.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

"...conservative..."???


"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.

The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive."
European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

Why do you list one court in Europe instead of the many courts in the US who have ruled the opposite?

The poster above is claiming that opposing same sex marriage rights is Marxist. You either agree with him or you don't.

Which is it?

Habits start out like cobwebs but end up as strong as steel cables.....and, in old age, your longtime habit of lying and/or change of subject have become a sort of involuntary tic.
You're certainly not able to chart a new course at this late stage.

This post of yours, a perfect example.

Did you not claim that the view was "conservative"?

Would you continue on and claim that the EU, or the UN or "The highest human rights court in Europe" is conservative?


I certainly wouldn't put it past you, as lying is your mode of operation, isn't it.

In 2006, the House voted on the following proposed Amendment to the Constitution:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

202 Republicans voted for it. 34 Democrats voted for it.

Please continue your argument that the opposition to same sex marriage rights is not overwhelmingly conservative.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll378.xml

Provide any post where I stated "the opposition to same sex marriage rights is not overwhelmingly conservative."

Either that or admit that you are a congenital liar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

But, then, she's talking about cultural Marxism, better known today as multiculturalism or political correctness, the nature of which is patently statist, oppressive, contrary to "a multi-cultural society" that promotes unfettered "freedom of speech, assembly, religion, equal protection." ?

And on which side of that equation does conservative opposition to equal rights for same sex couples fall?

"...conservative..."???


"The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.

European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.

The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive."
European court Gay marriage is not a human right News LifeSite

Why do you list one court in Europe instead of the many courts in the US who have ruled the opposite?

The poster above is claiming that opposing same sex marriage rights is Marxist. You either agree with him or you don't.

Which is it?

Habits start out like cobwebs but end up as strong as steel cables.....and, in old age, your longtime habit of lying and/or change of subject have become a sort of involuntary tic.
You're certainly not able to chart a new course at this late stage.

This post of yours, a perfect example.

Did you not claim that the view was "conservative"?

Would you continue on and claim that the EU, or the UN or "The highest human rights court in Europe" is conservative?


I certainly wouldn't put it past you, as lying is your mode of operation, isn't it.

In 2006, the House voted on the following proposed Amendment to the Constitution:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

202 Republicans voted for it. 34 Democrats voted for it.

Please continue your argument that the opposition to same sex marriage rights is not overwhelmingly conservative.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll378.xml

Provide any post where I stated "the opposition to same sex marriage rights is not overwhelmingly conservative."

Either that or admit that you are a congenital liar.

This thread. You tried to use the anecdotal example of the Euro court to make the argument that such opposition was not conservative.